There is no "gray" when it comes to what is good or evil, it is always black and white. People have the potential to be as evil as Hitler, or as good as Gandhi or MLK Jr. However, most people are more like zebras.

Viper

So Viper, what's your point? Do you think the American people should SUBMIT TO THIS?

My point friend is this, we were told or lead to believe these were "scans" that the nellys would have but now they got HD b&w pics of naked children and everyone else.A naked scan is bad enough but now we learn these things are capable of takin' true b&w photos, shit the caller on the show said color is possible too!

My point friend is this, we were told or lead to believe these were "scans" that the nellys would have but now they got HD b&w pics of naked children and everyone else.A naked scan is bad enough but now we learn these things are capable of takin' true b&w photos, shit the caller on the show said color is possible too!

So, the conclusion is that the people must not tolerate being forced to go through these scanners! They must speak out! Agreed?

IMO, everyone should be making a flyer, poster, video, or whatever your talent is, to denounce the existence of these machines! If they get away with this, the tyrrany is going to accelerate even more! They must be told "NO" and by everyone going through an airport or wherever these are installed!

As part of the gargantuan fraud being peddled by the corporate media in service of the government’s agenda to subject everyone to degrading naked body scans in airports, apologists for the devices claimed that people’s genitals would be blurred out to save embarrassment.

This has now proven to be a fraudulent con designed to keep people in the dark about the fact that the body scanners DO produce crisp images of your naked body and they DO allow TSA thugs to see intricate details of your genitals.

A report from October 2008, when the naked body scanners were first being introduced at Melbourne Airport in Australia, detailed how the X-ray backscatter devices don’t work properly unless the genitals of people going through them are visible.

“It will show the private parts of people, but what we’ve decided is that we’re not going to blur those out, because it severely limits the detection capabilities,” said Office of Transport Security manager Cheryl Johnson.

“It is possible to see genitals and breasts while they’re going through the machine,” she admitted.

In addition, London Guardian journalist Helen Carter writes today that the scanners produce an image which make “genitals eerily visible,” after she attended a trial run at Manchester Airport earlier this week.

The aggressive campaign on behalf of governments and the media to sell the public on invasive body scanners has been accompanied by the reassurance that the devices do not show details of genitals, an obvious attempt to counter the fact that the machines do represent a virtual strip search as well as violating laws against child pornography.

Images accompanying articles about the scanners, as well as TV news reports, blurred out sensitive areas, creating the impression that this is also what officials in airports saw, misleading the public into thinking that their private parts would not be on public display.

Since it’s already been admitted by security officials, as well as personally witnessed recently by newspaper reporters, that the scanners do indeed provide detailed pictures of people’s sexual organs, are Americans going to accept thugs in uniforms staring at their genitals, or are people finally going to say enough is enough and start boycotting the airlines as well as conducting mass protests in resistance to this complete abomination against basic human dignity?

Posted it to my blog and then to Reddit (gave credit to jofortruth and this thread). Judging by the amount of comments after only a few minutes after posting, this could be on the front page soon enough.

wanted to 'illustrate' what those new airport scanners show, but instead of using one of the published example pictures they simply took a model from a commercial stock photography cd, inverted the colors (that's why she looks real when the color is inverted back), pasted weapons onto her and tried to pass that off as the real thing.

That blog post adds wrong to that wrong by doing the inversion back, but not using that to show where those incorrect images come from but as how the scanners show things."

So has anyone tried to do the same thing with real scanner pictures? Is it possible to turn negatives into color pictures?

It's more than possible to turn negatives into color pictures, because in the good old days negatives are what were used to create color pictures!

You see, way back before cameras were all digital, there was this stuff called "film". And the pictures captured on this antique "film" stuff were called negatives because the colors caught on the film were the opposite of the colors seen by the actual human eye.

In the developing process, the negatives were transferred with scientific precision onto photo sensitive paper in a lab like setting and if done correctly, the pictures came out in near to life COLOR!

But with the invention of Photoshop, you go to the filters options, select negative, wait 1.3 seconds and WAH-LAH! Full color photo from any negative picture.

Logged

“go to work, send your kids to schoolfollow fashion, act normalwalk on the pavement, watch T.V.save for your old age, obey the lawRepeat after me: I am free”

"But last year, a bill sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), banning the routine use of these machines easily passed the House, with the support of two out of every three GOP members. At the time, he warned, “The images offer a disturbingly accurate view of a person’s body underneath clothing, even allowing Transportation Security Administration officials to distinguish gender or see the sweat on a person’s back.”